SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

JOHN LICHFIELD

OPINION: French riots make a Le Pen presidency inevitable? I doubt it

As the French right and far-right rush to make political capital from the recent riots, John Lichfield looks at the reasons why Marine Le Pen could become president in 2027, and the reasons why she won't.

OPINION: French riots make a Le Pen presidency inevitable? I doubt it
Leader of the French far-right Rassemblement National Marine Le Pen delivers a speech in parliament. Photo by Emmanuel DUNAND / AFP

And the winner of the 2023 French riots is…Marine Le Pen.

Does that mean – as a growing drumbeat in France and abroad suggests – that this crafty, shallow, incompetent woman is a certainty/shoo-in/ the great favourite to become the next President of the Republic in 2027?

I doubt it. I could assemble an argument why Le Pen might win. I could also assemble an argument why she will NOT win.

I am more persuaded by the second argument but I’ll try to set out both versions as fairly as I can.

First, here are the reasons why France will elect its first far-right leader since 1944 in four years’ time.

Even before the worst ever riots in France’s multi-racial suburbs, Le Pen had cashed in on President Emmanuel Macron’s unpopular pension reform by saying not very much. One opinion poll in April suggested that she would win the second round of the 2022 presidential election by 55 percent to 45 percent if the vote was re-run.

France may not be a two-party state like the US or the UK but Le Pen has become de facto (in the absence of anyone else) the Leader of the Opposition. When Macron is down, she is up.

France is a country which detests its leaders and changes them at most opportunities. After three unsuccessful attempts, it should be Le Pen’s turn to win in 2027. Macron cannot run again; the Left is scattered (again); the centre-right is tiny and divided; Macron’s consensual, reformist, pro-European centre will be rejected by many on the Right and Left by association with Macron.

In the last year, Le Pen has craftily nurtured a more consensual image as Mother of the Nation. She has moderated her language. She has stood aside as President of the Rassemblement National for a plausible young man with boy-band good looks who performs the racist nods and winks on her behalf.

Le Pen’s large group of 88 deputies in the National Assembly has given her party new visibility and respectability. She has ordered her followers to work hard and avoid xenophobic outbursts to give the impression of a party of government-in-waiting.

And that was before the riots which began two weeks ago after a 17-year-old Franco-Algerian boy was shot dead by a traffic policeman in Nanterre, west of Paris. The riots were disgraceful, unjustified and self-harming. They had many causes. There are no easy solutions to the problems of police violence or the alienation and brutality of part (not all) of another generation in the multi-racial banlieues surrounding French towns and cities.

The French far right and large parts of the supposedly moderate centre-right refuses any complexity. They have plunged in the last two weeks into a joyous orgy of racial – and ultimately racist – explanations.

The Senate leader of the centre-right Les Républicains, the piously Catholic Bruno Retailleau, said 90 percent of the rioters might have been French-born but they had “regressed to their ethnic origins”.

Le Pen’s rival Far Right leader, Eric Zemmour, speaks of the start of a “racial and religious civil war”.

(Fact check: there are 6,000,000 people in the banlieues. About 8,000 people, maybe one in 20 of the teenage boys and young men, were involved in the five days of riots.)

Many senior members of Le Pen’s parties made similar remarks – suggesting that core issues were the race and religion of residents of the banlieues which were incompatible with France and “French values”.

There was, however, one exception: Marine Le Pen herself. She has made few public statements. She has made no visits to stricken banlieues or riot-damaged small towns. She has avoided the rhetorical escalation of the Zemmouristes and the Républicains and some of her own lieutenants.

Instead, she has circulated a would-be presidential video in which she speaks before a French flag, calling for a return to “Republican order”. While much of the centre-right makes a Gadarene charge towards racism, Marine has posed as a woman of caution; a safe-pair-of-hands, a President-in-waiting.

Some of her leading supporters are grumbling in private that she is being too soft. She has left the open goals to Zemmour and Les Républicains, they say.

Le Pen takes the view that some goals are so open that they don’t need to be scored.

That is the case for a President Le Pen.

Now here are the reasons why she will lose again in 2027.

The French political battlefield remains divided three ways between a radical Left, a reformist, pro-European Centre and a populist-nationalist Right.

Le Pen’s problem is the same as it was last year. Where does she get the votes above the 50 percent needed to win in a two-candidate second round?

She will almost certainly reach the run-off again for a third time; she may even top the first-round poll. If Macron was running again, mass abstention on the Left might just see her home. If she were confronted with a radical Left opponent, she might win.

But, given the poisonous divisions on the Left, her second-round opponent is likely to be another centrist candidate: possibly the former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, possibly the current finance minister Bruno Le Maire, possibly U.N. Autre (Jean Castex anyone?)

Without Macron in the race, more left-wingers will vote for a centrist candidate in Round Two to “block” the Far Right and Le Pen.

As she has discovered twice already, you can reach Round Two by being Opponent-in-Chief; you cannot become President without a coherent platform for government.

Le Pen’s past ties with Putin’s Russia, including loans to her perennially cash-strapped party, remain a potential vote-loser. But her greatest handicap is a muddled economic programme. Macron humiliated her on economic issues in the televised debates between the two candidates in both 2017 and 2022.

Le Pen’s offer has not changed since then, because it cannot change without ripping apart her unnatural coalition of populist leftism and populist rightism: more state spending and lower taxes.

She remains committed to reducing the retirement age to 60 for people who started work in their teens or 20s, without explaining how that could be funded. She has dumped her father’s pledge to leave the EU but much of her programme – including national preference and aids to industry – would infringe EU law.

To win in 2027, Le Pen needs: a self-defeating civil-war between would-be successors to Macron in the Centre; and a second-round contest between herself and Jean-Luc Mélenchon or some other candidate of the radical Left.

It might just happen. Far more likely, it won’t.

All predictions four years out are foolish but here goes anyway. There never will be a President Marine Le Pen.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

JOHN LICHFIELD

OPINION: Macron’s attempts to tame world leaders shows he’s more a thinker than a diplomat

French President Emmanuel Macron's flawed efforts to charm the world's autocratic and populist leaders have previously ended in failure or even humiliation. Taking the Chinese president to the Pyrenees won't change that record, writes John Lichfield.

OPINION: Macron's attempts to tame world leaders shows he's more a thinker than a diplomat

Emmanuel Macron used to fancy himself as a lion-tamer.

There wasn’t a murderous dictator or mendacious populist that the French President would not try to charm: Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Narendra Modi, Recep Tayip Erdogan, Victor Orban.

The results, overall, have been poor. Sometimes Macron has been eaten, diplomatically-speaking. Years of trying to smooth-talk Vladimir Putin – with invitations to Versailles and the presidential retreat at Fort Brégancon and the long-table talks in the Kremlin – ended in disillusion and humiliation.

Macron’s attempts to create a blokeish friendship with Boris Johnson ended in cross-Channel exchanges of insults and accusations. His mission to find a core, reasonable Donald Trump ended in the discovery that there was no reasonable Donald Trump, just a self-obsessed, shallow deal-maker or deal-breaker.

And now President Xi Jinping of China. The two presidents and their wives are on an away-day to the French Pyrenees (Tuesday), visiting a region dear to Macron since his childhood.

The first day of Xi’s French state visit in Paris yesterday seems to have produced very little. The Chinese president promised to send no arms to Russia but that is a long-standing promise that he has, technically-speaking, kept.

Xi is reported to have promised to restrict sales to Moscow of “secondary materials” which can be used to make arms. We will see.

The Chinese leader also agreed to support Macron’s call for an “Olympic truce” in Ukraine and elsewhere for the duration of the Paris games in late July and August. Good luck with that.

On the gathering menace of a trade war between the EU and China, no progress was made. As a minimal concession to his French hosts, Xi promised to drop threatened dumping duties on French Cognac and Armagnac sales to China.

Otherwise, Xi said that he could not see a problem. Cheap Chinese-built electric cars and solar panels and steel are swamping the EU market? All the better for the European fight against inflation and global warming.

READ MORE: How ‘Battery Valley’ is changing northern France

Maybe more will be achieved in shirt-sleeves in the Pyrenees today. The Chinese leadership is said to approve of Macron or at least believe that he is useful to them.

Beijing likes the French President’s arguments, renewed in a speech last month, that the EU should become a “strategic” commercial and military power in its own right and not a “vassal” of the United States. The Chinese leadership evidently has no fear of the EU becoming a rival power. It sees Macron’s ideas for a “Europe puissance” as a useful way of dividing the West and weakening the strength of Washington, the dollar and “western values”.

Macron has sometimes encouraged this way of thinking, perhaps accidentally. After his state visit to China last year, he gave a rambling media interview in which he seemed to say that the EU had no interest in being “followers of the US” or defending Taiwan from Chinese aggression. He had to amend his words later.

That was Macron at his worst, an ad-lib, stand-up diplomat who ignores advice from the professionals in the Quai d’Orsay. I would argue, however, that the wider Macron argument – the EU must become more powerful or die – is the French President at his best.

Few other politicians in the world think ahead so much as Macron does. Democratic politics is mired in short-termism. Only autocrats like Xi or Putin can afford to think in terms of decades or centuries.

Macron likes to look around corners. He is often a better thinker than he is a diplomat or practical, daily politician.

His core argument – made in his Sorbonne speech last month and an interview with The Economist – is that Europe faces an unprecedented triple threat to its values, its security and its future prosperity.  

The rise of intolerant populist-nationalism threatens the values and institutions implanted in Europe after World War Two. The aggression of Russia and the detachment of the US (not just Donald Trump) threatens Europe’s security. The abandonment of global rules on fair trade – by Joe Biden’s US as well as Xi’s China – threatens to destroy European industry and sources of prosperity.

READ MORE: OPINION – Macron must earn the role of ’21st-century Churchill’

Civilisations, like people, are mortal, Macron says. Unless the EU and the wider democratic Europe (yes, you post-Brexit Britain) address these problems there is a danger that European civilisation (not just the EU experiment) could die.

Exaggerated? Maybe. But the problems are all real. Macron’s solutions are a powerful European defence alliance within Nato and targeted European protectionism and investment for the industries of the future.

The chances of those things being agreed by in time to make a difference are non-existent to small. In France, as elsewhere, these big “strategic” questions scarcely figure in popular concerns in the European election campaign.

Emmanuel Macron has now been president for seven years. His remaining three years in office will be something between disjointed and paralysed.

It is too early to write his political obituary but the Xi visit and the Sorbonne speech offer the likely main components. Macron will, I fear, be remembered as a visionary thinker and flawed diplomat/politician.

SHOW COMMENTS